소유권말소등기
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Based on the facts, Plaintiff B is the spouse of the deceased A (the deceased on March 19, 2016, which was after the filing of the instant lawsuit; hereinafter “the deceased”), the rest of the Plaintiffs are all the deceased’s children, who are all the deceased’s inheritors, and the Defendant is the deceased’s grandchildren.
On October 20, 2015, the Deceased: (a) donated each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”); and (b) on November 2, 2015, the Ulsan District Court received the instant real estate as the receipt No. 236305 on November 2, 2015, each of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant based on the said donation was completed.
The purport of evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings. 【The ground for recognition” is an unfair legal act in which there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings are determined as an unfair legal act. As to the assertion that the plaintiff's assertion is invalid, the deceased is the age of 84 years old at the time of the donation contract of this case, and the deceased cannot make a proper judgment due to brain color, heart, etc., so the donation contract of this case can be deemed to be based on the prudent judgment of the deceased, and the donation of the real estate of this case amounting to approximately KRW 1 billion to the defendant who is the grandchild of the market value of 27 years old is an act that is obviously unfavorable to the deceased, and thus, the contract of this case is null and void by Article 104
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant real estate to the plaintiffs, who are the inheritors of the deceased.
Judgment
A juristic act which has manifestly lost fairness as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act refers to an act of obtaining unfair economic benefits by allowing the other party to return in return that has remarkably lost balance compared to his own benefit. Thus, a juristic act in which one party without any consideration, such as a donation contract, gives the other party a unilateral benefit, may be discussed as to whether it is fair.